Le 15 déc. 2010 à 20:04, Fred Baker a écrit : > On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: > ... >> Rémi proposed an alternative where we adjust for checksum by changing the >> bits 64-79, on the rationale that the value 0xFFFF is not encountered in >> practice in these bits. > > Which, btw, I disagree with. Privacy addresses are in essence 64 bit random > numbers, and I don't see anything to prevent them putting 0xFFFF in the bit > field. Unlikely, perhaps, but not precluded.
To see why 0xFFFF is indeed precluded, see section 3.2.1 of RFC 4941 which says: "A randomized interface identifier is created as follows: ... Take the leftmost 64-bits of the MD5 digest and set bit 6 (the leftmost bit is numbered 0) to zero. This creates an interface identifier with the universal/local bit indicating local significance only." Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
